Eleanor Later

In the later years of their marriage, Eleanor of Aquitaine spent long stretches of time apart from King Henry II. From 1168 until 1173, for instance, she held court in Poitiers. She wasn't idle: she had responsibilities to Poitou and Aquitaine—territories that came to her from her father—and Henry was apparently content to have her stay there and manage them as his regent in the area. Moreover, the weather and lifestyle of the continent might have suited her more than life in England.

Her grandfather, William the Troubadour, had added to the Palace of Poitiers, where she lived, and Eleanor would also add to the original Merovingian structure, with a dining hall so vast that it was called the Salle des Pas Perdus, the "hall of lost footsteps," because the sound of footsteps got lost in the 50 by 17 meter expanse (see illustration).

Henry traveled to meet King Louis VII in January 1169. The purpose was to create alliances by betrothing his son Richard to Louis' daughter Alys. Henry's son Henry was already betrothed to Louis' daughter Marguerite. There is no evidence that Henry visited Eleanor while on the continent. They were together for Christmas 1170 near Bayeaux, and again in 1172 at Chinon.

The couple were together for a week in February 1173 at Montferrand for the betrothal of Prince John to Alice of Maurienne. At this time, the young Henry, who had already been crowned in order to establish the succession, became openly rebellious against his father. Henry II took him to Chinon, but the morning after they arrived found young Henry gone. He had fled to Paris and Louis VII, who supported him as the new king of England.

This started a revolt of his sons (but not John, who was only seven and by his father's side) against Henry II. Later writers found reason to blame Eleanor. William of Newburgh wrote that young Henry went to his mother, where his brothers Richard and Geoffrey were staying, to convince them to join him in overthrowing their father. Newburgh claims Henry had help from Eleanor to convince the two. Roger of Hoveden is more explicit, stating Eleanor deliberately sent the other sons to join their brother.

Whatever the case, it seemed Eleanor did put the resources of Aquitaine behind the rebellion. Going to join her sons in Paris in April, Eleanor was captured by Henry II's men and confined in Rouen. In 1174, Henry II took Eleanor and other nobles back to England to prepare for invasion from France. Eleanor was confined to an unknown location.

Henry senior beat the rebellion, and the sons had freedom afterward, but Eleanor was never allowed to be totally free. Her wealth and reputation were too risky to be allowed to interfere in royal policy. He tried having the marriage annulled on the grounds of consanguinity—which is how she became free to marry him in the first place—but a papal legate advised against it. He then tried to convince Eleanor to become a nun, but she requested the Archbishop of Rouen to persuade Henry to stop. Henry turned again to the pope, but was denied. The only recourse was to keep her under "house arrest" while he lived.

Her life after Henry's death was long and eventful, but would take months to discuss in 300-word snippets, so we will say that she died on the night of 31 March 1204 at the age of 80 and entombed between Henry II and Richard I.

History knows that Prince John was a pretty ineffective king, and of his role in Magna Carta and the trouble with Barons, but what happened to that marriage plan with Alice of Maurienne, and what or where was Maurienne, and was it a good match? I'll go into that tomorrow.

Fergus of Galloway

In yesterday's post about St. Ninian, I suggested that the biography of him written 700 years later by Aelred of Rievaulx may have had a political origin. To explain that, we have to talk about Fergus of Galloway.

An 1136 charter by King David I of Scotland includes as a witness Fergus of Galloway. This is our first reference to him. In the early Middle Ages, Galloway would have been a "sub-kingdom" in southwest Scotland, and a king of Scotland like David would have been seen as a "first among equals" like the high-king in Ireland. Over time, these sub-kings were designated as hereditary lords. The dynasty of Fergus lasted from his time until 1234.

Digging into contemporary documents, it appears that he may have been married to an illegitimate daughter of King Henry I of England, Elizabeth Fitzroy. (By some counts, Henry had two dozen illegitimate children.) Fergus had three children: Uhtred, Gilla Brigte, and a daughter Affraic. The chronicler Roger de Hoveden refers to Uhtred as a cousin of Henry's son Henry II. Fergus' second son, Gilla Brigte, had a son who was referred to as a kinsman of Henry II and his son, King John. In other marriage news, Fergus married Affraic to with Óláfr Guðrøðarson, King of the Isles (the Isle of Mann, the Inner Hebrides, the Outer Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Shetlands). Their son, Guðrøðr Óláfsson, became King of Dublin and the Isles. A 12th-century monk and chronicler, Robert de Torigni, claimed that Guðrøðr was related to Henry II.

The Fergus dynasty was very supportive of Augustinians, Benedictines, Cistercians, and Premonstratensians (a strict order founded by a friend of Bernard of Clairvaux, Norbert of Xanten). In one case, records state that Fergus founded a Premonstratensian house at Whithorn. Supposedly, St. Ninian had started the diocese of Whithorn, but it had lapsed, to be revived in 1128. Other records suggest that Fergus founded an Augustinian house that was later converted to Premonstratensian by Christian, the second bishop of the revived Whithorn diocese.

Fergus' extensive support of monasteries and orders has caused some head-scratching to determine the cause. Did he simply want to mirror what other, more-powerful lords did in their realms? Or was there some other underlying purpose. As it turns out, the greatest atrocities during the Battle of the Standard in 1138 were (according to chroniclers) committed by Gallovidian soldiers supporting King David's attempt to capture more territory. It seems likely that Fergus's religious generosity may have had a penitential flavor. Is it possible that the Life of Saint Ninian by Aelred of Rievaulx was a royal request in exchange for a gift to Rievaulx Abbey? Royal patronage is not an unlikely answer. The fact that a biography of a saint who originally founded Whithorn and performed miracles would bring attention and fame to a location within the bounds of Fergus' realm was simply a happy bonus.

For all his publicly expressed piety, however Fergus did not have a happy end. I'll tell you about that tomorrow. The next time after that, however, we will see how the facts of your life don't matter if someone decides afterward that you'd make a good story. See you soon.

Riot at the Coronation

During the coronation of Richard I, many citizens wanted to show their loyalty to the new king (and perhaps gain future favor) by giving him gifts. Not all citizens were welcome, however. Tradition meant not everyone was allowed to be part of or even witness the ceremony; for instance, women and non-Christians.

According to the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, Ralph of Diceto (c.1120 - c.1202), when some Jews arrived with gifts, they were stripped, flogged, and thrown from the building. To the people outside Westminster Abbey, the rumor spread that the new king disapproved of Jews and wanted them killed.

Riots began immediately. The Jewish population of London was attacked. Many of the homes in the area called Old Jewry were made of stone, and could withstand attacks by ordinary citizens, but the solution was to set them on fire, killing those within. (Some non-Jewish homes were destroyed by fire as well.) Some Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. Among those killed was Jacob of Orléans, a tosafist or author of commentaries on the Talmud, who had left France to teach in England. Some Jews escaped London, while some fled to the Tower of London to request sanctuary. Some were sheltered by Christian friends.

Richard was furious: no one wants the start of their reign to be marked by a massacre. His desire to punish the perpetrators was curtailed by the fact that there were so many and that some were prominent citizens. He chose to punish specifically the destruction of certain property. Roger of Hoveden describes it thusly:

On the day after the coronation, the king sent his servants, and caused those offenders to be arrested who had set fire to the city; not for the sake of the Jews, but on account of the houses and property of the Christians which they had burnt and plundered, and he ordered some of them to be hanged.

Although Richard seemed not to care about the destroyed Jewish homes, he did allow forcibly converted Jews to return to their chosen faith. He made a royal writ saying Jews should be left alone—he was concerned about what would happen when he left the country, since he had already pledged to go on Crusade.

When he went on Crusade shortly after, however, there were more examples of anti-semitism, which I will share tomorrow.

The Coronation of Richard I

Richard I of England was not his father. Not only did he rebel against his father and reject support of his father's favorites, but he was far more known for his love of pageantry than Henry II. His coronation on 3 September 1189—incidentally the first coronation of an English king for which we have a detailed account—was considered lavish. We have an eyewitness to this event: Roger of Hoveden, who worked for Henry II and stayed with Richard, including going on the 3rd Crusade.

One of Richard's first moves upon becoming king was to release his mother from house arrest. Since the revolt of Henry's sons in 1173-74, Eleanor of Aquitaine had been kept imprisoned (though in style) for 15 years. Eleanor's hand was likely in the coronation agenda: Richard was her favorite of their sons, and she had waited for this day for three decades.

It started with a long procession through London, ending in Westminster Abbey, where all the great barons and lords of England gathered to see their new king. Nobles in the procession carried items made of gold: swords, cups, spurs, a royal scepter. Once in the Abbey, Richard knelt before the altar and the assembled bishops and abbots of England. A Bible and saints' relics were placed before him. Then, according to Roger of Hoveden:

…. [Richard] swore that he would all the days of his life observe peace, honor, and reverence towards God, the Holy Church, and its ordinances.  He also swore that he would exercise true justice and equity towards the people committed to his charge.  He also swore that he would abrogate bad laws and unjust customs, if any such had been introduced into his kingdom, and would enact good laws, and observe the same without fraud or evil intent.

Then came the true moment when he would become king: the anointing. Attendants came forward to removed his clothing except for undergarments, and giving him sandals embroidered with gold to wear. He was wearing a special shirt designed to keep his right shoulder and his chest bare. Baldwin of Forde, the Archbishop of Canterbury (whom Richard had ordered months earlier to stop his radical re-organizing of their chapter house), anointed his head, chest, and arm.

Richard then donned consecrated linen and royal robes, spurs and a sword. The crown was sitting on the altar. Richard took it, handed it to Baldwin, and was formally crowned. (In fact, two earls held it above his head because of its weight.) Richard then sat himself on the throne, and a Mass of celebration was begun.

Roger of Hoveden continues:

The mass having been concluded, and all things solemnly performed, the two bishops before-named, one on the right hand the other on the left, led him back from the church to his chamber, crowned, and carrying a sceptre in his right hand and the rod of royalty in his left, the procession going in the same order as before. Then the procession returned to the choir, and our lord the king put off his royal crown and robes of royalty, and put on a crown and robes that were lighter; and, thus crowned, went to dine; on which the archbishops and bishops took their seats with him at the table, each according to his rank and dignity. The earls and barons also served in the king’s palace, according to their several dignities; while the citizens of London served in the cellars, and the citizens of Winchester in the kitchen.

It must have been a sight that no one present would forget. Unfortunately, nor would they be likely to forget the mayhem that followed when some "uninvited guests" came to pay their respects and offer gifts to the king. Riot and murder followed, but that is a story for next time. 

The Chronicle of Melrose

Melrose Abbey, on the Scottish border, mentioned in connection with St. Cuthbert, is historically significant for other reasons. Many Scottish kings are buried there, and a stone coffin found in 1812 under an aisle in the south of the abbey was speculated to be that of the "wizard" Michael Scot. And although Robert Bruce was said to have been buried in Dunfermline Abbey, his embalmed heart was supposedly buried on the grounds of Melrose, encased in lead.

The Abbey had a checkered history. Long after Cuthbert's time, it was damaged in 839. King David I of Scotland (1084-1153) wanted it rebuilt, but the Cistercians who would populate it picked a different site with more fertile land for farming. It was rebuilt and its church dedicated in 1146. In 1322, much of the Abbey was destroyed by Edward II of England (1284-1327). It was rebuilt by Robert the Bruce. In 1385 it was burned by the forces of Richard II of England (although he did grant them some money in 1389 in compensation). Rebuilding began again, but stalled. At the beginning of the 16th century, it still wasn't complete. That was probably just as well, since in 1544 the Abbey was again damaged by English forces attempting to force the marriage between Mary Queen of Scots and the son of Henry VIII. And of course, Oliver Cromwell felt the need to bombard it with cannon fire in the 1640s, even though it hadn't held a monk since 1590.

As well as majestic ruins and burial legends (and the ghostly monks said to walk the grounds), Melrose left us something else. Not directly though: it was found in the Cotton Library as Faustina B.x, and investigation traced its origin to Melrose.

Page for 1246, 1247, 1248

The Chronicle of Melrose has two sections. The first, covering from 735 until 1140 (the new founding), is a summary of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other works, including that of Roger of Hoveden. It adds nothing new to our knowledge. The second section, from 1140 until 1270, is unique. The handwriting changes over time, suggesting that it was added to contemporaneously by eyewitnesses, rather than compiled all at once like the first section.

As a singular Scottish viewpoint on events, it is invaluable. A 1263 battle between Norway and Scotland is part of a saga written by Icelandic historian Sturla Thordarson (1218-1284). The Chronicle of Melrose offers a second viewpoint from the Scottish side, confirming the fact of the conflict—if not precisely the same details. A series of mis-steps caused the Norwegian forces to cede valuable ground and, in deteriorating weather, they retreated. The monks' Chronicle puts it a little differently:

A.D.1263.  ... it was not man's power which drove him away, but the power of God which crushed his ships, and sent a pestilence among his troops. Such of them as mustered to engage on the third day after the feast of Michaelmas, God defeated and slew by means of the foot-men of the country. Thus they were compelled to carry off their wounded and slain to their ships, and to return home in more disgraceful plight than they had left it.

The Chronicle also gives us a list of deaths and promotions of abbots and lords and high-ranking laymen, radical weather and the appearance of comets, the ups and downs of political figures in Scotland and the northern English shires, and the earliest list extant of Scottish kings. It's another valuable tool in piecing together the complex history of the Middle Ages.

Roger of Hoveden

One of the men who went on the Third Crusade (talked about here and here), wrote accounts of some of the events of that adventure, notably The Fall of Jerusalem, 1187 and Laws of Richard I (Coeur de Lion) Concerning Crusaders Who Were to Go by Sea. He didn't witness the Fall of Jerusalem himself, however, having gone over with Richard I in August 1190 and returning to Europe in August 1191 with Phillip II of France.

Roger of Hoveden (d.1201?) was unknown to history until 1174, when Henry II sent him on a secret mission to the lords of Galloway in southwest Scotland. His name suggests he was born in what is now called Howden, in Yorkshire. His death date is inferred from the fact that one of his historical works, called the Chronica, breaks off suddenly at 1201.

The Chronica (Chronicles) is an attempt (like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) to create a comprehensive history of England. For the parts of English history preceding his own life, he mostly just copies earlier works. From 732-1170, he uses other works. From 1170-1192, he copies his own earlier work, the Gesta Henrici II et Gesta Regis Ricardi (Works of Henry II and Works of King Richard).* The Gesta is the best evidence that Hoveden must have been well-connected at Henry's court: he shows detailed knowledge of political events, and is more sympathetic to Henry's side in the ongoing disputes between Henry and his sons and others. From 1192 until its abrupt end in 1201, the Chronica (along with the Gesta) is a valuable tool for understanding some of the changes in England's constitutional development.

Here is an excerpt from the Chronica for 1183, with what might seem an interesting puzzle:

In the year of grace 1183, being the twenty-ninth year of the reign of king Henry, son of the empress Matilda, the said king of England was at Caen, in Normandy, on the day of the Nativity of our Lord; the king also, and Richard and Geoffrey, ... . After the Nativity of our Lord, the king ordered the king, his son, to receive homage from Richard, earl of Poitou, and from Geoffrey, earl of Brittany, his brothers; on which, in obedience to his father, he received the homage of his brother Geoffrey, and was willing to receive it from his brother Richard, but Richard refused to do homage to him; and afterwards, when Richard offered to do homage to him, the king, the son, refused to receive it. Richard, feeling greatly indignant at this, withdrew from the court of the king, his father, and going to Poitou, his own territory, built there some new castles and fortified the old ones.

Does it seem to you that there are two kings mentioned here? There are. Tomorrow we'll look at when England had two Kings Henry at the same time.

*This work was originally attributed to Abbot Benedict of Peterborough, because his name appeared on a copy in Benedict's library. Benedict's library-building habits are well-known, however, and evidence exists that he had a copy of the Gesta made from its original source.